de minimus exception; "not"

[cpadan]

Several weeks ago there was a discussion about the need for a "de minimus exception" for the acitvie participant in employer's retirement plan rule.

In the case of William Edward and Patricia Marie Colombell released today (11/30), the tax court recognized this need but states that the court "is not free to rewrite the law."

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/

To bad that exception wasn't wrote into the Pension "Protection" Act.

Dan

[OldJack]

Similarly, a “participant” is defined as “one that participates”.
Id.
The regulations, however, provide that an individual is an
active participant in a defined benefit plan simply by not being
excluded from the plan. See sec. 1.219-2(h), Example (1), Income
Tax Regs. No actual behavior on anyone’s part is required. In
fact, actual knowledge of the plan’s existence is not even
required.

I believe the tax court was wrong in its conclusion as the worker was clearly prohibited or excluded from "participation" because of hours worked. Thank goodness this is not a case that can be cited by the IRS.

[jainen]

It's an idiotic ruling

It's an idiotic ruling, right in line with the rest of the insanity that has swept our government. The court said it can't use the ordinary definition of "active" (indicating action) because the law says it means not excluded. I guess it can't use the ordinary definition of "excluded" either.